Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations

:{{la|Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_misconduct_allegations Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations}})

There was discussion at the Harvey Weinstein article talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvey_Weinstein#A_separate_main_article_regarding_the_Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_allegation_controversy here]), and it seemed there consensus building was taking place, but an editor who hadn't commented at the discussion started the article. There was not unanimous support, in fact, four experienced editors (including myself) voiced that it was premature to create the article.

Like everything else controversial in the news, this incident blew up overnight and will likely die down soon. If it continues garnering significant and important coverage beyond the original story, like California's or New York's statute of limitations for rape allows for charges against Weinstein, if there's a trial, an uncovered sex ring, crimes were committed, and so on, then I would say this article is appropriate. This story really has no impact right now other than Hollywood and politicians covering their behinds. These people issuing statements in the days following the breaking of the story doesn't make for an encyclopedia article, the list of names of alleged victims seems to violate WP:LIST.

I think WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS also apply. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:*NOTE* After reading some comments here, I'm also in favor of merging into the Weinstein bio article. -- ψλ ● ✉ 14:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge with Harvey Weinstein - There is plenty of information there and it probably does warrant its own article. However, I also suggest merging it because I do agree with what you said about WP:LIST and WP:TOOSOON. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 02:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - for now, at least. This is a notable scandal which has elicited responses from many high-profile celebrities and politicians (including former President Obama and Hillary Clinton) and has received extensive coverage from RS since the past few days which is unlikely to go away soon. For now I'd say it is independently notable, but I guess it would be a good idea to renominate this in some months to see how well it stood the test of time. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - while there are certainly BLP issues with the article, Weinstein's statements are effectively conceding that at least some of the accusations are true. Given the number of topics that seem to be raised (accusers, his political and business connections, claims that he used his businesses to pay off accusers, responses/complicity accusations involving other people), I think that merging this into his main article would unbalance it massively. Blythwood (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep-relevant and sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with Harvey Weinstein. Seems strange to separate the allegations from the man's biography, but I see that's what was done with Bill Cosby and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. For precedent I lean keep - it's definitely already merited an amount of coverage and consequences that moves us past TOOSOON - but I think a merge makes more sense, personally. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

::I agree for the exact same reasons. Keep or merge. Merging makes more sense to me, and other articles should follow, IMO. --Pinnecco (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

::{{U|Owlsmcgee}}, the Cosby allegations article was created, I believe, after he had been charged, not before. The same should apply here. If there are charges, then it's an actual "incident". If not, then it's worthy of an article section in the existing bio. -- ψλ ● ✉ 14:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

::This appears to be a decoy page. When I posted about Weinstein's harrassment on his page I was told by an editor to move to this page, but this page is slated for deletion so all the work to document the decades of harrassment will not be saved. This is a women's issue which the mostly male editors of Wikipedia may not have as a concern, but there is no reason to move the harassment information away from his main page unless a desire to draw posts here and then delete this page.Kmccook (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I feel that this is a notable subject, but there isn't enough information yet to fill a page. This is definitely a wait and see. Cricketer993 (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, or failing that merge back. I think the separate article was created a bit too early, but the amount of relevant content we have now is already a WP:DUE problem if merged back to the main article, and more content is very likely to be forthcoming. As to notability, the amount of international coverage this has gotten is more than enough for an article, meriting coverage similar to other scandals like Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal.  Sandstein  08:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Perhaps it was created a little too hurriedly, but there's enough content here for another article, the story is liable to expand and there's a solid precedent for it. If the decision is taken to delete it, the content should be re-integrated back into the original biography. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: It's one of biggest scandals in Hollywood. A lot of media coverage to support its WP:N. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with Harvey Weinstein in order to keep it proportionate, reduce unnecessary duplication, and to keep the information in context with the rest of his life and career (this is now an essential part of that article, and it's not that helpful to have to leave the article to read about it on a different page). If the story develops such that the information becomes too large for the main article, that is the time to split it out per WP:SPLITOUT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

::One example of why it is helpful to read the current sexual allegations in conjunction with the whole article is this section in the full article: Harvey_Weinstein#Managerial_style_and_controversies. This gives a fuller picture of his aggressive manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: it has already achieved country-wide notability and it's just a matter of time until it receives international widespread coverage. Wumbolo (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Hugely significant coverage which has already gone far beyond the routine, and this seems unlikely to die down any time soon. The allegations are also the subject of police investigations in two different countries (see [http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/12/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-london-nyc-police-investigation/index.html this article from CNN] for example), and it is receiving international coverage. In the UK it's been one of the leading stories on BBC News for much of this week. It certainly meets WP:GNG at the very least. This is Paul (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)-
• Keep - Consensus building may have been taking place on another article talk page, prior to the unilateral creation of this article, however that is not a legitimate reason to delete this article which most definitely passes WP:GNG. Also, this article goes way beyond news therefore I don't see WP:NOTNEWS as a legitimate argument for deletion. The nominator has used WP:TooSoon as an argument for deleting this article, however, based on the huge variety of already available sources and references, I don't see why we can't get on with creating this article already and adjust accordingly in the future. IJA (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as this topic is continuously in the news to the point it may warrant its own topical article like Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Arbor to SJ (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge with Harvey Weinstein per {{u|SilkTork}}. Given that so far the controversy amounts to allegations that are for the most part not backed up by evidence and that Weinstein is actually denying the sexual assaults then I think the context of a biography is vital. Even if the allegations meet the notability threshold Wikipedia has a moral duty to not unduly propagate innuendo. If there is a criminal investigation and charges are filed against Weinstein then that is probably the correct moment to create a dedicated article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, but not merge - at this point, the sexual misconduct allegations are a story that encompass people and matters beyond Weinstein, albeit he is the central figure. This includes commentary on Hollywood, the film industry, and the people who were affected by the situation. In various articles, the women hurt by Weinstein explain the reason for their silence. If we merge the current article with Weinstein's biography, their voice would again be silenced (inadvertently, of course). Sandstein also brings up examples of other similar articles, so precedent also exists that merits keeping this article.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: The BLP's Sexual assault allegations section could be expanded to make it more robust, considering this scandal's widespread coverage and significant impact. However, as Sandstein points out above, merging this ever-growing and explosive material back into the BLP would create a serious WP:DUE issue. KalHolmann (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep and trout the nominator. No reason whatsoever to delete or to merge. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, but not merge - It's not hard to see that this situation will have more than enough information to stand alone. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and do not merge. Notability is obvious, and I won't me-too all the previous comments supporting that. I'm mostly speaking up to avoid a merge. The topic is independently notable. There are many, many people who know of Weinstein only based on this scandal. It deserves separate coverage; it is, in the minds of most, a separate topic. If it's merged into the main article, it would need to be trimmed drastically, in a way that does not well-serve Wikipedia readers, in order to avoid overwhelming a biographical article on this aspect. TJRC (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and no merge. Significant news story that is too big to be relegated to a section in Weinstein's page. Rusted AutoParts 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep this deserves its own page like this one Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. Sabot Cat (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep, and don't merge I agree with User:Figureofnine and User:Rusted AutoParts. Dozens of accusers; national news coverage; almost reaching Bill Cosby levels. Keep, don't merge into Weinstein's page, and possibly trout the nominator. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep Per precedents Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations, Larry Craig scandal, Anthony Weiner sexting scandals, Mark Foley scandal, John Edwards extramarital affair, and many more.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• SNOW Keep This clearly meets WP:NEVENTS. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Given the significant, in-depth global coverage and reactions this is not an example of WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS prohibits original reporting and writing in news style. It also prohibits "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia"; this is clearly not an example of trivial or routine news reporting. AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep with no merge. This is a major, developing story. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is the biggest story to come out of Hollywood this year and contains far too much detail to be contained in the main Harvey Weinstein article.LM2000 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep without merging. A huge story that will keep unfolding. JJARichardson (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.